Posted by Editormum on 25 May 2013 in
News Commentary |
∞
The decision earlier this week by the Boy Scouts of America’s National Council to accept openly homosexual boys as Scouts has raised a lot of anger and vitriol across the country. The BSA has been warned to expect a mass exodus of boys and leaders from the troops. I’ve seen Facebook posts from many who say that their sons will no longer be scouts. I have also received emails from people who plan to take their sons out of Scouting. My ex-husband has told me that he will be leaving his leadership roles in three different troops just as soon as he has fulfilled certain agreements that he has committed to. And that he would like it if I would take our sons out of scouting as well.
It’s been a hard decision, but I’m not going to do that. And I want to appeal to other parents and leaders to rethink their stance, if they were planning to pull out. For several reasons.
First, removing a large number of good leaders will be very bad for the boys. The purpose of Scouting is for capable, mature men to mentor — to serve as role models and to pass on important skills and abilities — boys who are making the transition to manhood. If you have a young man who believes that he is gay, and you take away all of the men who might be able to influence him to be “morally straight,” you eliminate any chance of his discovering that his sexual preferences might be more changeable than he thinks. You also send the message that, because he is attracted to members of the same gender, he is not a fit person to associate with. This is not a message that we need to send to teenage boys. Ever.
Second, removing our sons from their troops isolates them from anyone who is different from them. We lose the opportunity to teach our sons how to respect others, despite their differences and even when we don’t agree with them or like what they do. The Scouting program has long been known for its ability to take young men of different classes, ethnic backgrounds, races, and religions, and meld them into a cohesive unit. Why should our sons not learn that sexual preference is an area of life in which we have to learn to work with those who are different from us? They go to school and play sports with homosexuals every day, and they will have to work with homosexuals when they enter the workforce. So how does isolating them from homosexuals in their Scouting endeavours benefit anyone?
And what of the benefit to the boys who are gay? They, too, must learn when and how to share the details of their lives with others. How can they learn wisdom and discretion if no one will work with them? A homosexual boy who is isolated from his heterosexual peers cannot learn to communicate comfortably on a deep level with heterosexuals if he doesn’t have a safe place to test his communication skills. And if all that he meets is rejection and derision, he’s going to develop a fear and distrust of all heterosexuals — this is not an outcome that benefits anyone in the long run.
I am a Christian. And while I do believe that engaging in homosexual behavior is wrong (a sin), I don’t believe it’s the only sin out there. And if we are going to ban homosexuals, how about thieves, liars, fornicators, gluttons, and supercilious prigs? After all, the Bible clearly states that God hates a proud look, a lying tongue, mischief-makers, and sowers of discord. (Proverbs 6:16-19)
When I became a Christian, I was making a commitment to follow the Lord Jesus Christ’s example in ordering my life. Jesus did not isolate Himself from the wicked of his day. In fact, He made Himself so available to them that He got a bad reputation among the “good people” of His culture. They said He was “a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!” (Matthew 11:19, Luke 7:34) It was not by refusing to eat with Zacchaeus (a thief by virtue of his profession of tax-collecting) that Jesus influenced him to repentance. It was by publicly and openly announcing, “I’m staying at your house for dinner today.” (Luke 19:1-10) And then by sharing a meal and making it obvious that He valued Zacchaeus despite his character flaws.
Jesus’s example was one of compassion, kindness, and care for those who were hurting and for those enmeshed by sin. If I believe that homosexual behavior is a sin, then the last thing I should do is start hurling epithets at homosexuals, telling them that they are horrible sinners who are going to Hell, and refusing to associate with them. Jesus’s example proves that I will have more chance of influencing them if I establish a relationship with them, show them that I care about them as a person and not just as an evangelism project, and tread very carefully when dealing with the issues upon which we disagree.
It was only believing Christians who were to be isolated if they persisted in unconfessed sin. (1 Corinthians 5:9-13) It was of sinning Christians that Paul wrote “don’t even eat with them.” Not of those outside the faith. Those who were not yet believers were to be treated with compassion and love, that they might be won to righteousness and the Christian faith. Read what Paul says: “… I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother [that is, a professing Christian] if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler. It’s not my business to judge those outside the church. It’s God’s.” (I find it interesting that Paul doesn’t mention homosexual behavior here, though he does elsewhere. The closest he comes is “immoral person.” And there’s no hierarchy here. The immoral are put on equal footing with those who are covetous, idolatrous, verbally abusive, drunk, or dishonest. Is anyone talking about throwing the drunks and the envious out of their troops?)
I am commanded to treat sinners as Christ did. And the only time that Christ was nasty to people was when they were self-righteous and when they falsely represented God the Father. In every other instance, we see Him acting with patient kindness. With the woman caught in adultery, with the Samaritan woman who’d had five husbands and was living with a man she wasn’t married to, with Zaachaeus the dishonest tax-collector, with a Roman soldier who was one of the oppressors of Israel, even with the inappropriately ambitious Boanerges, Christ was patient and forgiving. He established relationships with them and then gently pointed out the error of their ways. “You are forgiven. Go and sin no more.”
Were I to show less compassion, were I to teach my children to show less compassion, I would be sinning. So they will stay in Scouts.
Tags: Bible interpretation, Boy Scouts, boys, challenges, character, Christianity, faith, grace, homosexuality, Jesus, news, parenting, Religion, respect
Why I Will Not Be Taking My Sons Out of Boy Scouts
The decision earlier this week by the Boy Scouts of America’s National Council to accept openly homosexual boys as Scouts has raised a lot of anger and vitriol across the country. The BSA has been warned to expect a mass exodus of boys and leaders from the troops. I’ve seen Facebook posts from many who say that their sons will no longer be scouts. I have also received emails from people who plan to take their sons out of Scouting. My ex-husband has told me that he will be leaving his leadership roles in three different troops just as soon as he has fulfilled certain agreements that he has committed to. And that he would like it if I would take our sons out of scouting as well.
It’s been a hard decision, but I’m not going to do that. And I want to appeal to other parents and leaders to rethink their stance, if they were planning to pull out. For several reasons.
First, removing a large number of good leaders will be very bad for the boys. The purpose of Scouting is for capable, mature men to mentor — to serve as role models and to pass on important skills and abilities — boys who are making the transition to manhood. If you have a young man who believes that he is gay, and you take away all of the men who might be able to influence him to be “morally straight,” you eliminate any chance of his discovering that his sexual preferences might be more changeable than he thinks. You also send the message that, because he is attracted to members of the same gender, he is not a fit person to associate with. This is not a message that we need to send to teenage boys. Ever.
Second, removing our sons from their troops isolates them from anyone who is different from them. We lose the opportunity to teach our sons how to respect others, despite their differences and even when we don’t agree with them or like what they do. The Scouting program has long been known for its ability to take young men of different classes, ethnic backgrounds, races, and religions, and meld them into a cohesive unit. Why should our sons not learn that sexual preference is an area of life in which we have to learn to work with those who are different from us? They go to school and play sports with homosexuals every day, and they will have to work with homosexuals when they enter the workforce. So how does isolating them from homosexuals in their Scouting endeavours benefit anyone?
And what of the benefit to the boys who are gay? They, too, must learn when and how to share the details of their lives with others. How can they learn wisdom and discretion if no one will work with them? A homosexual boy who is isolated from his heterosexual peers cannot learn to communicate comfortably on a deep level with heterosexuals if he doesn’t have a safe place to test his communication skills. And if all that he meets is rejection and derision, he’s going to develop a fear and distrust of all heterosexuals — this is not an outcome that benefits anyone in the long run.
I am a Christian. And while I do believe that engaging in homosexual behavior is wrong (a sin), I don’t believe it’s the only sin out there. And if we are going to ban homosexuals, how about thieves, liars, fornicators, gluttons, and supercilious prigs? After all, the Bible clearly states that God hates a proud look, a lying tongue, mischief-makers, and sowers of discord. (Proverbs 6:16-19)
When I became a Christian, I was making a commitment to follow the Lord Jesus Christ’s example in ordering my life. Jesus did not isolate Himself from the wicked of his day. In fact, He made Himself so available to them that He got a bad reputation among the “good people” of His culture. They said He was “a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!” (Matthew 11:19, Luke 7:34) It was not by refusing to eat with Zacchaeus (a thief by virtue of his profession of tax-collecting) that Jesus influenced him to repentance. It was by publicly and openly announcing, “I’m staying at your house for dinner today.” (Luke 19:1-10) And then by sharing a meal and making it obvious that He valued Zacchaeus despite his character flaws.
Jesus’s example was one of compassion, kindness, and care for those who were hurting and for those enmeshed by sin. If I believe that homosexual behavior is a sin, then the last thing I should do is start hurling epithets at homosexuals, telling them that they are horrible sinners who are going to Hell, and refusing to associate with them. Jesus’s example proves that I will have more chance of influencing them if I establish a relationship with them, show them that I care about them as a person and not just as an evangelism project, and tread very carefully when dealing with the issues upon which we disagree.
It was only believing Christians who were to be isolated if they persisted in unconfessed sin. (1 Corinthians 5:9-13) It was of sinning Christians that Paul wrote “don’t even eat with them.” Not of those outside the faith. Those who were not yet believers were to be treated with compassion and love, that they might be won to righteousness and the Christian faith. Read what Paul says: “… I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother [that is, a professing Christian] if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler. It’s not my business to judge those outside the church. It’s God’s.” (I find it interesting that Paul doesn’t mention homosexual behavior here, though he does elsewhere. The closest he comes is “immoral person.” And there’s no hierarchy here. The immoral are put on equal footing with those who are covetous, idolatrous, verbally abusive, drunk, or dishonest. Is anyone talking about throwing the drunks and the envious out of their troops?)
I am commanded to treat sinners as Christ did. And the only time that Christ was nasty to people was when they were self-righteous and when they falsely represented God the Father. In every other instance, we see Him acting with patient kindness. With the woman caught in adultery, with the Samaritan woman who’d had five husbands and was living with a man she wasn’t married to, with Zaachaeus the dishonest tax-collector, with a Roman soldier who was one of the oppressors of Israel, even with the inappropriately ambitious Boanerges, Christ was patient and forgiving. He established relationships with them and then gently pointed out the error of their ways. “You are forgiven. Go and sin no more.”
Were I to show less compassion, were I to teach my children to show less compassion, I would be sinning. So they will stay in Scouts.
Tags: Bible interpretation, Boy Scouts, boys, challenges, character, Christianity, faith, grace, homosexuality, Jesus, news, parenting, Religion, respect